Subject Study- RAN Future OPC

From memory I thought that design was for a 2’100 or 2’700t ship. Could be wrong though. It looked nothing like the LCS.

I would like to see the RAN get ships based on the Austal design that the USA used for their Littoral ships. The trimaran design I am talking about was open between the hulls.

Wow I thought I was being ambitious proposing a fairly basic 2,500t OPV. And you’re talking about a 2,800t, 40kt+ trimaran. 😮

That said, Austal does have a design that might fit the bill better: the MRV 86. Though I’d be worried about the cost of an all-aluminium trimaran and its payload/range would also be on the low side.

I would like to see the RAN get ships based on the Austal design that the USA used for their Littoral ships. The trimaran design I am talking about was open between the hulls.

But once again if size doesn’t impact cost and the RAN has already decided that it needs a helo deck, then why not go for 2,500t instead of 1,500t? (Just to reiterate this point, the 3,750t Dutch OPVs have the same propulsion as the 1,900t Protector OPVs (10.8MW) and only a 0.5kt speed differential!)

With a 2,500t OPV, the “O” in OPV will mean “Oceanic”, not “Offshore”. That opens up the possibility to send these OPVs to patrol sea lanes in areas of interest such as South East Asia, the Pacific Islands and the Indian Ocean. Given that these OPVs will still be around in 2050, building in an upgrade path to a wider set of missions makes a lot of sense.

If cost is a concern, then instead of building smaller OPVs I would advocate building 2,500t OPVs with an “empty shell” and very basic systems (no medium gun, no combat system, no ESM, no countermeasures, no electric propulsion, no helo maintenance equipment). By doing so, you could cut the cost to probably within 10% of a 1,500t OPV, while still getting the benefits of better range, endurance, and payload. And there’d be upgrade path open for adding basic self-defense weapons, sensors and organic helo capability latter if the need arises to send some of them to the Persian Gulf or somewhere a bit “hot”.

By the way, a variant of the Spanish BAMs exists for hydrography, so that makes it an even more attractive design.

So what I don’t understand is why does the RAN seem set on such a narrow specification for its new OPVs? 1,200t-2,000t? Way too restrictive. …. :confused:

The currrent boats are 270t.

2,000t is rather generous. Quantity also matters. Anything larger is frigate territory – there are frigate replace plans too. The OPV is also suppose to becommon with minehunters and hydrographic vesesls. The White Paper makes it sounds the US Litorral Combat Ship program.

IMHO, the Kiwi OPVs represent the minimum effective size for ocean-going OPVs. Anything less than ~1,600t/85m compromises key capabilities such as range, seakeeping and payload (helo, RIBs, containers, passengers etc). Maybe you can shave off 100t by removing ice reinforcement but that’s about it.

But here’s the interesting thing. Cost for OPVs has almost nothing to do with size. So if the RAN went for a 2,500t OPV, it would cost almost the same as a 1,500t OPV. 😎

Why? First, crews will be the same, since they’ll be driven by mission requirements, not size. For example, the Spanish BAM and Kiwi OPVs both have about 35 crew. Second, propulsion will be the same. In fact, BAM reaches the same speed as the Kiwi OPVs on smaller engines (9MW vs. 10.8MW). 😮 Third, steel represents barely 10% of the total cost, ~about €8MM on a BAM. Almost all the remaining costs are driven by user requirements, not by size – design costs, crew spaces, sensors, weapons, electrical plant etc. That’s about 65% of the cost.

Now of course, it’s hard to resist the urge to add more toys to a larger hull :p. That’s probably why a BAM costs almost 2x the cost of a Kiwi OPV (€85MM vs NZ$90MM). But hopefully the RAN would only specify the toys it really neaded. Also, leveraging Navantia’s existing BAM design would bring an immediate 20% discount due to the design costs already being amortized. So now we’re talking AU$98MM for a 2,600t OPV vs. AU$69MM for a 1,900t OPV. Only a 40% price differential, and that’s entirely driven by the weapons and sensor fit.

What would the RAN get with a 2,500t OPV? Basically a whole lot more value for money:

– 25% more range (8,000nm vs. 6,000nm for BAM vs. Protector OPVs)
– 65% more endurance (35 days vs. 21 days)
– Enough space for a fuel efficient CODOE installation (electric propulsion under 12kts), reducing operating costs
– Medium helo capability (NH90 sized hangar/EH101 sized platform) vs. Seasprite only. Very important for the RAN, IMHO.
– Space for more armament if needed (1x 76mm + 2x 25mm vs. 1x 25mm)
– Space for better sensors if needed (basic air search radar, countermeasures)
– Better habitability (separate living rooms & messes for each rank, dedicated gym/internet/library spaces)
– More room for growth (which, as Swerve already pointed out, is where the Kiwis screwed up)

So what I don’t understand is why does the RAN seem set on such a narrow specification for its new OPVs? 1,200t-2,000t? Way too restrictive. And 75-80m? What are they smoking? That excludes any design larger than 1,500t or NH90 capable. So basically they seem to want a 1,200t-1,500t OPV with limited endurance, no medium gun and light helo capability at best. Barely able to get to the South China Sea on its own, and not very useful once it gets there either. :confused:

Here’s a comparison of the 2,600t BAM vs. 1,900t Kiwi OPVs:

Also, there are a couple of great PDFs on each. The Spanish PDF includes a pie-chart with a breakout of acquisition and operating costs for the BAM. Very, very interesting. 😎
BAM: www.ingenierosnavales.com/docurevista/841-PAG.%2081-91.pdf
Protector: http://brickmuppet.mee.nu/files/nzopv.pdf

Most of my dreams are like that. Aren’t yours? 😀

Weeelllll . . . . yes. 😮

Stanflex 3000 (Thetis class) anyone?

I like Thetis, but do the Ozzies want a 3500 ton ice-protected ship for patrolling their tropical bits? A couple for heading south wouldn’t go amiss, though, with the same sensor & weapon fit as the rest of the OPV fleet.

flanker30 – yes, it does sound very like the Project Protector, but it won’t be the same, because the Kiwis have cocked that one up. It’s overweight. From what I’ve heard, the growth margin was used up before entering service, & the ice protection belt is now too low. I reckon the RAN might like something along those lines, but done better.

Most of my dreams are like that. Aren’t yours? 😀

Stanflex 3000 (Thetis class) anyone?

Abso ‘kin lutely

No….
in the Pacific, the Australian ship needs reliable ships (with long endurance)
No “Ferrari”, stealth ships with short legs :rolleyes:

ok, order a long endurance version of it then 😉

Sounds like the New Zealand Project Protector OPV?

Yeah, but it’s an extraordinarily expensive dream, & terrible value for money.

Most of my dreams are like that. Aren’t yours? 😀

Stanflex 3000 (Thetis class) anyone?

No….
in the Pacific, the Australian ship needs reliable ships (with long endurance)
No “Ferrari”, stealth ships with short legs :rolleyes:

He’s right, the Visby’s are nice looking but not practical for our needs. I have some other stats here relating to fleet days at sea, but no actual mention of range.

[INDENT]

[/INDENT]

The next lot of Patrol vessels will indeed be Corvette sized, it’s a capability we really need now, our border protection system is failing and nothing the government is doing seems to be helping turn the flood of boat people around- it has gotten that bad that one load of boat people reached Australia from Sri Lanka- pulled out a mobile phone and said, we’re here, can you come and help us please?

Visby class is a looker thou…

No….
in the Pacific, the Australian ship needs reliable ships (with long endurance)
No “Ferrari”, stealth ships with short legs :rolleyes:

Visby class is a looker thou…

Swerve, I know it’s totally against my normal standings, but you must forgive me, I’ve been off line for a while, net wise, though mentally is questionable as well! Everyone usually posts out landish ideas on this forum, I thought I’d have a go.

Anyway back to normal transmission!

Yeah, but it’s an extraordinarily expensive dream, & terrible value for money.

Guys I know the Bertholf’s are more than what is in the scope of the project, I was offering a dream not a solution.

Reviving this topic, there has been talk lately of what the RFT will specify for the next vessels:
[INDENT]

• 1200 to 2000 tonne vessel, this is to allow growth potential over the expected life cycle of the vessels service
• 75 to 80 meters in length (notice Meters, not feet, precluding American designs)
• Helo capability with Hanger for either helo or UAV
• Capability to handle two mission modules at one time
• High levels of automation to cut down on crew which will follow along USN style manning teams (Blue and Gold) in order to maximise number of days at sea for the vessels in this class

[/INDENT]

So given these stats, what vessels are available? If I were in a position I’d be suggesting Bertholfs- yes I know they are bigger than specified but they fit the need and offer flexibility on an unprecidented scale!

Lesseeee. . . . spec says 1200-2000 tons, 75-80 metres, high degree of automation. You want quite a few of these, so the price should be moderate.

USCGC Bertholf is 4500 tons, 127 metres, a crew of 113 & cost US$640 mn. You’ll be able to afford about three of ’em, one each for east & west coasts & one in refit, repair or reserve.

Or you could buy, for the price of each Bertholf, 5 Meteoro-class BAMs (with a 76mm gun each) from Spain, & have money left over. You could crew three of them for each Bertholf, & have a few crew spare. You could put more helicopters at sea, in five times as many locations. I think that’s a lot more flexible. And that’s a ship bigger (95 metres, over 2500 tons), & more expensive, than the spec says. If you cut back to what the spec says, you could buy 6 or 7 vessels for the price of a Bertholf. Navantia, Damen Schelde, Fincantieri – indeed, everyone out there – has an off the shelf design they’d be happy to adapt to your requirements, at an affordable price.

But let’s assume that the spec is wrong, & the RAN would be better off with bigger, longer-endurance vessels. In that case, what’s wrong with the Dutch Holland class? Over 80% of the tonnage of Bertholf (3750), with less than half the crew (high level of automation), 76mm gun . . . The entire class of four ships is costing about as much as Bertholf.

The RAN does not have unlimited funds. It needs to look at the price tag, & seek value for money.

Bertholfs ships cost around 500/600 million $ apiece
Not a cheaper solution for a big OPV
😀

Reviving this topic, there has been talk lately of what the RFT will specify for the next vessels:
[INDENT]

[/INDENT]

So given these stats, what vessels are available? If I were in a position I’d be suggesting Bertholfs- yes I know they are bigger than specified but they fit the need and offer flexibility on an unprecidented scale! The 56mm gun could easily be replaced with a 76mm Oto, bringing it in line with standard fleet practice. It uses all the other standard RAN equipment already, and the aft section has a ramp for rapid on the move launch of sea boats for boarding parties. Two hangers allow for both helo and UAV ops.